When is the Covid war over?

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:05:32 AM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 07/04/20 22:05, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:46:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 07/04/20 21:07, David Brown wrote:
On 07/04/2020 21:33, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


But it /is/ a problem for "stop eating meat" vegetarians who are not
used to eating much in the way of vegetables.

Pure, unsupported nonsense as I have explained. Your concepts of
protein nutrition are not founded in fact and need to be corrected from
whatever silly sources you have used.



I don't think there is any point in taking this further.

I find many of your posts to have accurate and interesting information.
But once you start discussing things, you apparently prefer to nitpick,
ridicule, misinterpret and misunderstand. You seem to have a determined
goal to find a way to prove everyone else wrong, and count that as higher
than listening to what people say or thinking about what they mean - to
you, it is better to interpret things in the worst possible way. I think
perhaps you have been in s.e.d. too long - you are too used to dealing
with the likes of Larkin and as a result have forgotten how to have an
adult conversation.

Pretty much.

Add a tendency to believe that the whole world is like his environs, and
that people think and behave as he thinks he does. And then to refuse to
absorb solid evidence to the contrary.

I just gave up arguing with him. I told him the conditions in China months
ago that was like Italy and NYC. Deadly hospitals and 24/7 cremations. Fake
Chinese numbers. All i got was insults. So, i just shut-up.

You provided assertions without decent rationale or evidence.
They looked like political or philosophical arguments rather
than medical/epidemiological arguments.

That doesn't mean they are wrong, just less credible.

What is political about stating the facts, just two months early? I saw reports of mass deaths in so called hospitals, overloaded 24/7 crematories, empty stores and factories, global shipping and supply chains shut down. These are all evidences of more serious virus than "just the flu".

They can all be easily checked with some phone calls, emails or other sources. If you just turn a blind eye and dismiss them with political statements, the result is yours to bear. How can you sleep at night with thousands of lives lost with people believing your political opinions.

California got the message and shutdown early. New York believes misinformed political statements and suffer the consequences.

 

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:00:00 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:05:32 AM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 07/04/20 22:05, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:46:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 07/04/20 21:07, David Brown wrote:
On 07/04/2020 21:33, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


But it /is/ a problem for "stop eating meat" vegetarians who are not
used to eating much in the way of vegetables.

Pure, unsupported nonsense as I have explained. Your concepts of
protein nutrition are not founded in fact and need to be corrected from
whatever silly sources you have used.



I don't think there is any point in taking this further.

I find many of your posts to have accurate and interesting information.
But once you start discussing things, you apparently prefer to nitpick,
ridicule, misinterpret and misunderstand. You seem to have a determined
goal to find a way to prove everyone else wrong, and count that as higher
than listening to what people say or thinking about what they mean - to
you, it is better to interpret things in the worst possible way. I think
perhaps you have been in s.e.d. too long - you are too used to dealing
with the likes of Larkin and as a result have forgotten how to have an
adult conversation.

Pretty much.

Add a tendency to believe that the whole world is like his environs, and
that people think and behave as he thinks he does. And then to refuse to
absorb solid evidence to the contrary.

I just gave up arguing with him. I told him the conditions in China months
ago that was like Italy and NYC. Deadly hospitals and 24/7 cremations. Fake
Chinese numbers. All i got was insults. So, i just shut-up.

You provided assertions without decent rationale or evidence.
They looked like political or philosophical arguments rather
than medical/epidemiological arguments.

That doesn't mean they are wrong, just less credible.

What is political about stating the facts, just two months early? I saw reports of mass deaths in so called hospitals, overloaded 24/7 crematories, empty stores and factories, global shipping and supply chains shut down. These are all evidences of more serious virus than "just the flu".

They can all be easily checked with some phone calls, emails or other sources. If you just turn a blind eye and dismiss them with political statements, the result is yours to bear. How can you sleep at night with thousands of lives lost with people believing your political opinions.

California got the message and shutdown early. New York believes misinformed political statements and suffer the consequences.

People demand references for opinions. That's silly, because you can
find most anything you want on the web.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:28:48 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People demand references for opinions. That's silly, because you can
find most anything you want on the web.

Adults are expected, though, to have informed opinions. It's possible to find
both information and misinformation on the web. Opinion quality varies,
and is testable against knowledge, SO if an opinion wasn't checked against
knowledge, the demand will be... dodged, ignored, or answered with some wild
provocation.

And sometimes, it's answered with a misconception, abuse of ambiguous language,
or obvious untruth. Those answers DO tell us something useful.

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People demand references for opinions. That's silly, because you can
find most anything you want on the web.

That's because opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one. When it comes to something as important as this disease, no one cares about opinions. We are looking for the truth.

--

Rick C.

-++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 8:25:48 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 08/04/2020 00:08, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 4:07:25 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 07/04/2020 21:33, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


But it /is/ a problem for "stop eating meat" vegetarians who are
not used to eating much in the way of vegetables.

Pure, unsupported nonsense as I have explained. Your concepts of
protein nutrition are not founded in fact and need to be corrected
from whatever silly sources you have used.



I don't think there is any point in taking this further.

I find many of your posts to have accurate and interesting information..
But once you start discussing things, you apparently prefer to
nitpick, ridicule, misinterpret and misunderstand. You seem to have a
determined goal to find a way to prove everyone else wrong, and count
that as higher than listening to what people say or thinking about what
they mean - to you, it is better to interpret things in the worst
possible way. I think perhaps you have been in s.e.d. too long - you
are too used to dealing with the likes of Larkin and as a result have
forgotten how to have an adult conversation.

I reviewed my post and the only part I can find that would remotely be offensive in the way you describe is this.

I can't do anything about your hurt feelings on the matter.
I don't have hurt feelings, or feel offended. It would be silly for
someone to join s.e.d. if they are easily offended, or if they let the
other posters here bother them. That would be like joining a fight club
and complaining about getting punched.

So why did I make that post, if it wasn't to complain about
ill-treatment or that I feel you were unfair? I did it to point out to
you where I see a problem - something that /you/ can change, if you
understand my point and agree with it. It is intended as constructive
criticism. (And I don't claim to be free of exactly the same flaws.)

I'm happy to receive constructive criticism, but I need to understand it and you've only stated generally that I "nitpick, ridicule, misinterpret and misunderstand" without any specifics.

Your posts are often factual, sometimes with references - but like
anyone else, much of what you "know" comes from personal experience,
things you have read, accumulated knowledge. That's fine - that's how
human knowledge works.

Sorry??? What??? Facts are not "personal experience". They are the opposite.

Your problem comes from your failure to accept that in others.

Any time someone has an opinion or experience that is even marginally
different from yours, the reaction is a demand for references, followed
rapidly by insults, ridicule, and mockery.

If someone states an opinion as fact, then yes, I call them on it. Why shouldn't I? Opinions are not "alternative facts".


> You don't have a monopoly on truth. You don't have a monopoly on facts.

No, truth is its own monopoly.

You don't have a monopoly on experience. You have a thoughtful and
analytic mind, and are good at finding reliable sources and excluding
poor ones. But you are very bad at listening to others and learning
from them - as a consequence, you have a very blinkered view of many
things. You assume that how things are for you personally, applies to
everyone - regardless of the country, or any other aspect of the people
involved. And you reject and ridicule anyone who contradicts you here.
Even if you happen to be right, you express yourself in a way designed
to put people down - which can never help to get your point across.

I believe we were discussing the nutritional aspects of protein and the essential amino acids. There are simple facts associated with that. Many people have vague ideas about protein nutrition that contradict the facts. I refute those ideas anytime I see them expressed.

I think if you look I initially explained the facts of essential amino acid nutrition along with some amount of background. No one disputed the facts I was presenting. Instead more of the same vague, general, incorrect notions were stated in reply. So then I responded in stronger terms. If you found that offensive, I'm sorry. I suppose I get irritated when people ignore the simple facts and cling to the vague notions without ever doing any of the work that I did to find that information.

This all makes it extremely tedious and frustrating trying to have a
discussion with you. There are plenty of people in s.e.d. that you know
will descend quickly to swearing, or regurgitating propaganda, or
blindly denying reality. While one might try to correct these people,
you know fine you'll never learn anything from them. With you, the
frustration comes because I know that you have useful things to say -
but you push everyone away from you.

You mean by explaining the truth about a topic?

I have seen this in a great many discussions involving you and other
people, not just myself, in several groups. This is a long-term pattern.

Sorry if I come on strong. Please review the conversation again and tell me what I said that was offensive.

--

Rick C.

-+-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:28:48 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People demand references for opinions. That's silly, because you can
find most anything you want on the web.

Adults are expected, though, to have informed opinions. It's possible to find
both information and misinformation on the web. Opinion quality varies,
and is testable against knowledge, SO if an opinion wasn't checked against
knowledge, the demand will be... dodged, ignored, or answered with some wild
provocation.

And sometimes, it's answered with a misconception, abuse of ambiguous language,
or obvious untruth. Those answers DO tell us something useful.

Most people don't think; they believe what they perceive that most
other people think, or what charismatic people seem to think. That
effect, spread across the majority of a population, has radical
dynamics.

It can have horrible social effects, like bell-bottom jeans and
gluten-free English Muffins. And a couple of World Wars.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:48:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Adults are expected, though, to have informed opinions.

Most people don't think; they believe what they perceive that most
other people think, or what charismatic people seem to think.

Really? Because, that doesn't describe any of the people I hang out with.
It sounds more like reality-show and sitcom characters.

I've done a lot of hanging out in science establishments, though.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:19:02 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:48:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:


Adults are expected, though, to have informed opinions.

Most people don't think; they believe what they perceive that most
other people think, or what charismatic people seem to think.

Really? Because, that doesn't describe any of the people I hang out with.
It sounds more like reality-show and sitcom characters.

I bet the people that you hang out with share a lot of beliefs.

I've done a lot of hanging out in science establishments, though.

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 4:39:13 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

Interesting. I've never heard the scientific process referred to as "group think". That explains a lot... but not about science.

--

Rick C.

-++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

No, science doesn't fit that description. As Einstein remarked, on seeing
a pamphlet _A Hundred Authors Against Einstein_
"Why a hundred? If I really am wrong, it only takes one."

The hundred authors, on the other hand, really DO have the appearance
of group-think.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 6:39:13 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:19:02 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:48:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:


Adults are expected, though, to have informed opinions.

Most people don't think; they believe what they perceive that most
other people think, or what charismatic people seem to think.

Really? Because, that doesn't describe any of the people I hang out with.
It sounds more like reality-show and sitcom characters.

I bet the people that you hang out with share a lot of beliefs.


I've done a lot of hanging out in science establishments, though.

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

Science is a scheme for constructing a sort of "group think" that lines up with reality.

Continental drift is the kind of thing where it did take fifty years to change the concensus. Wegner proposed it in 1912 and it took until about 1963 and the magnetic stripe evidence for seafloor spreading to set up a coherent body of knowledge which could accommodate it.

It's about as far from "group think" as you could get, but the group involved did change it's opinion as new data came up and got fitted into a new world view.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:07:31 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-08 20:37, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

No, science doesn't fit that description. As Einstein remarked, on seeing
a pamphlet _A Hundred Authors Against Einstein_
"Why a hundred? If I really am wrong, it only takes one."

The hundred authors, on the other hand, really DO have the appearance
of group-think.

Physics is far from immune. Hanbury Brown and Twiss had terrible
trouble getting the theorists to accept that you could make light from
different sources interfere, even though that's the whole basis of radio
communications.

N-rays, the particle theory of light, phlogiston.... all of those stayed
around until the people who believed them died off.

Being willing to abandon prior philosophical commitments is not as rare
in scientists as in the general population, but it's far from universal
even with them.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

People are social animals. That produces tribalism, fear, racism, war,
fashion, tradition, and shared beliefs. After immediate basics like
hunger and survival, it's the most powerful thing in most people's
lives. It easily overpowers reason.

S.E.D. has tribes who (don't) think together. And a few people who
allow themselves to think.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-08 20:37, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

No, science doesn't fit that description. As Einstein remarked, on seeing
a pamphlet _A Hundred Authors Against Einstein_
"Why a hundred? If I really am wrong, it only takes one."

The hundred authors, on the other hand, really DO have the appearance
of group-think.

Physics is far from immune. Hanbury Brown and Twiss had terrible
trouble getting the theorists to accept that you could make light from
different sources interfere, even though that's the whole basis of radio
communications.

N-rays, the particle theory of light, phlogiston.... all of those stayed
around until the people who believed them died off.

Being willing to abandon prior philosophical commitments is not as rare
in scientists as in the general population, but it's far from universal
even with them.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:39:38 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:07:31 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-08 20:37, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Scientists are hardly immune from group-think. It usually takes a
breakthrough experiment to change their concensus. Sometimes that
takes a hundred years.

No, science doesn't fit that description. As Einstein remarked, on seeing
a pamphlet _A Hundred Authors Against Einstein_
"Why a hundred? If I really am wrong, it only takes one."

The hundred authors, on the other hand, really DO have the appearance
of group-think.

Physics is far from immune. Hanbury Brown and Twiss had terrible
trouble getting the theorists to accept that you could make light from
different sources interfere, even though that's the whole basis of radio
communications.

N-rays, the particle theory of light, phlogiston.... all of those stayed
around until the people who believed them died off.

Being willing to abandon prior philosophical commitments is not as rare
in scientists as in the general population, but it's far from universal
even with them.

People are social animals. That produces tribalism, fear, racism, war,
fashion, tradition, and shared beliefs. After immediate basics like
hunger and survival, it's the most powerful thing in most people's
lives. It easily overpowers reason.

S.E.D. has tribes who (don't) think together. And a few people who
allow themselves to think.

John Larkin isn't any of them. He does allow himself to fantasise, but thinking is supposed to be about getting your ideas lined up with the real world, and he doesn't know nearly enough about the real world to manage that.

He's not aware of how little he knows, and treat a great of misleading propaganda as if it was reliable information.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:39:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People are social animals. That produces tribalism, fear, racism, war,
fashion, tradition, and shared beliefs.

Fear? No, that's just a leftover fight-or-flight response. Not social in
root cause. Tradition isn't clear, either; it's not as broad as a whole
society, more subgroup-habitual-role-assignment.

The 'shared beliefs' isn't entirely social, either; I got most of my physics education
from watching demonstrations (and working on making them for others).
Didn't you learn about electronics that way?

The rest of it, is why we have language. We really CAN share knowledge and
it works out to our advantage to do so. Of particular note, Tu Youyou got the
Nobel prize (2015) for.. figuring out old documents that contained a malaria treatment
which had been forgotten. She wasn't in the same society as the old
author, but all it took was a knowledge of the written language to close
the knowledge gap, not a social ensemble.
..

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:36:39 +0100, Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I would never go to a hospital for anything other than a broken bone. They're fucking useless at curing anything, and chances are you'll catch something else.

Once this disease gets rolling, you won't have much choice but to avoid hospitals. There won't be a bed for you.

As I just sad if you were listening, they can't fix it anyway. Best chance is to rest in bed and let your own body cure it.

And people should pay to go to hospital, that would sort out the overcrowding. In times of a pandemic, just shove the entry fee up a bit. Supply and demand innit?

Indeed. Then instead of the death rate being a factor of age it will be a factor of wealth. Yup, very Amurican.

Poor folk don't help society.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 00:06:45 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 3:08:56 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

It's causing very few problems. The lockdown is causing an order of magnitude more problems.

Well, DUH. The worldwide cases are about a million, so under 0.1% of the population,
and the lockdown is the way we keep it from become 50%.

It's nothing like 50%, only 4% of people getting it will die. And that's including the infirm. Since very few healthy people die of it, it's not really a big problem is it?

> The CORRECT

Using capital letters indicates you're a moron. Do you yell at people in real life when you're speaking?

way to deal with a problem like this is to keep the case count low until a vaccine is available,
or some other (reliable, convenient) treatment can be given on an outpatient basis.

Would you do that with the flu? No? Why this then? It's not the end of the world if a small percentage die.

The lockdown, at only one order of magnitude, is the better solution when
a non-lockdown quickly grows the problem two or three orders of magnitude.

The lockdown is making everyone bankrupt. You can't just make 90% of us stop working and expect the world to keep running.

 

[DJ Delorie]

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> writes:

Since very few healthy people die of it,
it's not really a big problem is it?

Can we put you on the list of those who die from it? Please? And
anyone else who says "it's ok if a few die." We can add your children
and friends next if we need more volunteers.

The CORRECT

Using capital letters indicates you're a moron. Do you yell at people
in real life when you're speaking?

I often stress a word or two if it's important. That might be a bit
like yelling. I know many "discussions" turn into yelling in real life.

way to deal with a problem like this is to keep the case count low until a vaccine is available,
or some other (reliable, convenient) treatment can be given on an outpatient basis.

Would you do that with the flu?

Yes! I get a flu vaccine every year.

The lockdown, at only one order of magnitude, is the better solution when
a non-lockdown quickly grows the problem two or three orders of magnitude.

The lockdown is making everyone bankrupt. You can't just make 90% of
us stop working and expect the world to keep running.

Unemployment is way lower than 90%. In our family, it's closer to 15%.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 6:31:54 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 00:06:45 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 3:08:56 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

It's causing very few problems. The lockdown is causing an order of magnitude more problems.

Well, DUH. The worldwide cases are about a million, so under 0.1% of the population,
and the lockdown is the way we keep it from become 50%.

It's nothing like 50%, only 4% of people getting it will die. And that's including the infirm. Since very few healthy people die of it, it's not really a big problem is it?

Silly; we don't want people sickened OR dead. Be sensitive to the needs of (and
considerate of the health of) your fellow humans.

The CORRECT

Using capital letters indicates you're a moron.

To a six-year-old, that might make sense.

way to deal with a problem like this is to keep the case count low until a vaccine is available,
or some other (reliable, convenient) treatment can be given on an outpatient basis.

Would you do that with the flu? No?

Yes, the 1918 flu was a comparable illness, and that's exactly what I'd do. Worldwide,
that's the consensus (with Bolsonaro being a notable outlier) on this illness.

There is no "the" flu; the variants are quite different in impact.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 11:31:54 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 00:06:45 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 3:08:56 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

It's causing very few problems. The lockdown is causing an order of magnitude more problems.

Well, DUH. The worldwide cases are about a million, so under 0.1% of the population, and the lockdown is the way we keep it from become 50%.

It's nothing like 50%, only 4% of people getting it will die. And that's including the infirm. Since very few healthy people die of it, it's not really a big problem is it?

He was talking about cases of infection, not deaths.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

does say that your chance of dying of a Covid-19 infection is only 0.2% if you are younger than forty. That's low, but not zero, and it's a real problem for the unlucky few. The risk doubles if you between 40 and 50 - to 0.4% - and goes up to 1.3% if you are between 50 and 60. It triples again if you are between 60 and 70 to 3.6%and merely doubles - to 8% - if you are between 70 and 80. I'm 77 so I really don't want to get infected. It 14.8% is you are older than 80.

The CORRECT

Using capital letters indicates you're a moron. Do you yell at people in real life when you're speaking?

It happens when one is talking to really stupid people. It's unhelpful - they don't get any less stupid - but it can be difficult to get their attention f you don't go ove the top to some extent.

way to deal with a problem like this is to keep the case count low until a vaccine is available, or some other (reliable, convenient) treatment can be given on an outpatient basis.

Would you do that with the flu? No? Why this then?

The flu kills a lot fewer people, and many fewer people who aren't frail or elderly.

> It's not the end of the world if a small percentage die.

It's the end of the world for that small percentage.

The lockdown, at only one order of magnitude, is the better solution when
a non-lockdown quickly grows the problem two or three orders of magnitude.

The lock-down is making everyone bankrupt.

It isn't in Australia. It is creating all sorts of problems for people who need to get hold of the support available, but bankrupticies aren't happening yet.

You can't just make 90% of us stop working and expect the world to keep running.

You can, particularly if you do the lock-down right, essentially eliminate the virus from within your community with a month or so of lock-down, and then going over to quarantining everybody who come into the community for a fortnight to make sure that it doesn't get back in.

It's a short term measure, not a long term social change - if it is done properly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney